What will make development sustainable? I mean it could take some time until it gets trackson and also usually open source works if there is a supporting company behind it.
I am going to get it to a point where moderately technical people would be happy to use it over other options, and build a community that contributes. I will continue to work on making it easier to use over time.
It would be great to see a business model behind it too. You had to manufacture all the products in a factory and every product would be breaker down to the very basics. This was my idea for ages but never started to build it...
If the ownership is with the publishing studio then AFAIK they pay the producing, distribution and promotion. It is an investment into the artist, so they shouldn't have these costs.
> I wouldn't necessarily say abandoned. I still work on it from time to time, but progress is very very slow and I cannot prioritise it over other things atm
Which is fine but they didn’t merge any PRs either. I might have a go at a fork of this but I don’t take a phone with me running or track them these days.
They are running a phase 2 trial for this right now (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04528680?term=Sonaben...). It's scheduled to complete in late 2025. Phase 3 will probably be a few years past that, and then probably at least a year or two for approval.
That said, the clinical trial is for the combination of a drug treatment + implantable device. The implantable device itself (Sonocloud 9) has been granted fast track status by the FDA (https://www.fusfoundation.org/posts/cartheras-sonocloud-9-sy...). The fast track status should help speed up how quickly the FDA authorizes the overall treatment once clinical trials are complete.
So... completely pulling a number out of my butt, probably 5-7 years.
It will take 2 of those 5 years just to ascertain at what levels it is safe, and then another two years to determine whether it is better than the current standard-of-care.
While we're all desperate (some more than others) for a break-through in cancer treatment, it seems perfectly reasonable to demonstrate that something is both safe and better than the current standard-of-care before physicians start rolling this out to everyone affected by the brain tumours this therapy would help.
I sympathize with the sentiment that delaying rolling out a therapy like this seems inhumane, it would be no less (and arguably more) inhumane to roll out a therapy where we didn't establish safe doses and effectiveness to the best of our ability. Both potentially result in deaths.
Maybe there are some efficiencies to be found, but we are talking about experimental treatments where the efficacy takes weeks to years to measure. You can't run an overnight benchmarking test.
But in saying that, if a trial is showing very positive results then it can be fast tracked, as it is unethical to withhold that kind of treatment. Conversely, plenty of trials that look good in phase I/II fail in phase III and are terminated early.
To your point, as soon as enough evidence is obtained in Phase III that the drug is better than standard of care, the trial ends early and patients in the trial get switched to it. At least, that was the case in the case studies we looked at in my lectures.
Calling this Europe data when you're comparing data from 5 European cities is a bit exaggerated. We have 44 countries in Europe and even within a country there can be significant differences.
Those are the only relevant locations for somebody who is considering emigrating for career purposes. The other countries do not have job markets big enough and salaries high enough to merit the effort of moving there, considering we are talking about actual countries, with different languages and cultures.
Steel is very problematic. 90% comes from China. Proven reserves of iron will run out at some point and we'll need to find new ones. Smelting uses coal. Iron mining is environmentally destructive.
Amount in the crust is hardly relevant. After all there are trillions of tons of lithium etc. in the Earth's crust. Transition to a "hydrogen economy" would put unprecedented demand on existing sources. It's not realistic.
Neither of the ewe assertions are even remotely true.
The grid can handle overnight charging just fine, there's more than enough transmission and distribution capacity.
Natural gas pipelines can not be used with hydrogen without some as of yet undiscovered coating. Plus these pipelines are single use; are you going to stop all gas usage in all houses before we let people fill up at stations or homes?
We can do load balancing on the grid, it's proven and old tech. Smart grids handle it easily and you don't need an unicorn startup to cycle the car chargers to balance the grid load.
We can use exactly zero of the current gas distribution system for hydrogen. Hydrogen molecules are literally the smallest in the universe, we haven't invented a container where they won't escape. You can't just pour hydrogen into a gas station tank or transport it in a natural gas pipe.
Transporting hydrogen will always result in huge losses. Less huge if you transport it as a liquid, but then you need to transport it at -252 Celsius - which brings a whole new set of problems.
Transporting hydrogen is easier than transporting electricity on the large scale. A pipeline is both simpler and more scalable than wires after you get to a certain size.
I have three BEV chargers at my home now. i didnt need to change a thing to my “built in 2000 to code” home to do this, as it “came out of the box” w/ 200 amp service.
My chevy bolt will charge at 8a (conservative) or 12a (“fast”) at my preference. It takes maybe 3-4 hours over night to charge from my average driving day with a decent commute.
My car consumes, while charging for a few hours overnight, about the same amps as a good clothing iron or a beefy vacuum. If i wanted, i could delay charge so three EV charged overnight, never draeing power at the same time.
My next car will buffer power so solar cells can overcharge and supply back to the house. And it will be a backup power supply for storms and grid outages so I no longer need a standby generator.
Tell me again about how the grid isnt ready for my BEVs and why we should be pumping some liquid or gas into tanks?
For a charging outlet, electricity is arguably simpler. But that is not what I was talking about. I was referring to large scale distribution of energy. We're talking GWs and hundreds of miles here. In that case, it is easier to move around hydrogen.
It is the same reason why we have miles of natural gas pipelines sending NG to local NG turbines instead of a few big NG power plants with wires sending electricity everywhere.
Natural gas leaks from pipes, but it's "free" so we don't care.
Hydrogen we need to make using a resource intensive process, and it leaks from every single container ever made, because it's literally the smallest molecule in the universe. Hydrogen transport incurs so big losses that it's not feasible at a large scale [0].
To move an equal amount of energy, you need 4x many ships as LNG, because you lose 23% more during transport than LNG AND you need to transport it at -253C which is a whole another issue.
Hydrogen is a good energy storage medium, but it's not practical for transportation. It's a lot easier and cheaper to move the same amount of energy using the power grid.
The future of hydrogen is renewable energy storage, on location. Not transport.
Neither natural gas nor hydrogen leaks in appreciable amounts in pipelines. They do care about profits, and leaky pipes lose money.
You do not need 4x as many ships. You just need bigger tanks. Hydrogen is much lighter than LNG. Bigger tanks are not an issue. You're hearing straw-engineer arguments from those with a vested interest to BS about these issues.
The video I linked to was "Michael Liebreich’s Keynote Speech at World Hydrogen Congress 2022"
Why would the World Hydrogen Congress have a "vested interest to BS"?
The speaker is comparing a LNG ship to a prototype Kawasaki LH2 ship, with actual values for both.
What he's suggesting is that we transport ammonia instead of LH2, ammonia is a lot more stable to transport and can be converted to hydrogen at the destination.
True, but it does work for now, with a small number of cars, and can be improved as that number grows. This isn't the case for Hydrogen (where can you fill up your hyrdogen car?)
What makes you believe the current gas network can be used for Hydrogen? I don't believe this is the case, but would be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.
reply